If you're a financial freak try online forex, forex online has never been easier; experience forex trading at the leading forex broker offering forex managed accounts offering you the opportunity to trade forex online with state of the art real trading conditions.

Webmaster or site owner? Join the leading forex affiliate program and start earning from your advertising space.

If you operate a corporation, you give up your First Amendment rights [Darleen Click]

While presenting an oral argument in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia last fall, a lawyer for the U.S. Justice Department told a federal judge that the Obama administration believed it could force the judge’s own wife—a physician—to act against her religious faith in the conduct of her medical practice.

The assertion came in the case of Tyndale House Publishers v. Sebelius, a challenge to the Obama administration’s regulation requiring health-care plans to cover sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs. […]
Judge Reggie Walton: But considering the closeness of the relationship that the individual owners have to the corporation to require them to fund what they believe amounts to the taking of a life, I don’t know what could be more contrary to one’s religious belief than that.

Berwick: Well, I don’t think the fact this is a closely-held corporation is particularly relevant, your honor. I mean, Mars, for example–
Judge Walton: Well, I mean, my wife has a medical practice. She has a corporation, but she’s the sole owner and sole stock owner. If she had strongly-held religious belief and she made that known that she operated her medical practice from that perspective, could she be required to pay for these types of items if she felt that that was causing her to violate her religious beliefs?

Berwick: Well, Your Honor, I think what it comes down to is whether there is a legal separation between the company and—

Judge Walton: It’s a legal separation. I mean, she obviously has created the corporation to limit her potential individual liability, but she’s the sole owner and everybody associates that medical practice with her as an individual. And if, you know, she was very active in her church and her church had these same type of strong religious-held beliefs, and members of the church and the community became aware of the fact that she is funding something that is totally contrary to what she professes as her belief, why should she have to do that?

Berwick: Well, your honor, again, I think it comes down to the fact that the corporation and the owner truly are separate. They are separate legal entities.

Judge Walton: So, she’d have to give up the limitation that conceivably would befall on her regarding liability in order to exercise her religion? So, she’d have to go as an individual proprietor with no corporation protection in order to assert her religious right? Isn’t that as significant burden?

Of course not, silly. She’d still have the right to worship — in the privacy of her home …

quietly, with the curtains drawn,

…least she offend others with the hatey-hatiness of her clinger, white trash, religionist, christer godbothering.

She should be grateful she would still be allowed to have her medical license at all.

People whose religion teaches that abortion is murder and/or contraception a sin generally feel the same way about paying for those types of things as you would if you were forced to support a state sponsored religion.

The big problem with your income tax example is that the employers are being mandated to give their money to a third party non government agency to buy a product they don’t believe they should have to buy, because it goes against strongly held religious beliefs.

This isn’t give the money to the govt and then the govt does what it wants.

This is like telling a Mormon they must stock their cafeteria with coffee and booze, because …..because the govt says so. Pfffft

The notion that insurance should be tied to your employer is antiquated. The only reason it appeared in the first place is that tax rates were very high, but workers weren’t taxed for their insurance benefits. Providing better benefits would draw better people.

Given the fact that people are much more mobile as far as jobs go these days, it would make more sense to have everyone be self-insured, and the difference in cost to the employer added to the person’s income. That would cure quite a few problems, but of course choice is bad so it will never happen with the fascists in charge.

I’m done trying to explain it to him. He’s just being a provocateur and refusing to educate himself so like a class clown, he needs to have his desk moved out into the halls so the rest of us may carry on.

Of course when killing babies in the womb and buttsecks are the prime movers in one’s universe, why bother with him?

Login/Register

Advertisements

DHgate.com is the leading B2B online trading marketplace for china wholesale products, you can buy high quality china wholesale apparel, electronics, security cameras and other wholesale products on DHgate.com.